Extremism in politics

For a politician, to hold a tight grip on national discourse guarantees success in politics. Losing that grip, on the other hand, sets the seal on failure. Which is why, every preeminent politician knows how to keep the populace engaged.

They often get attention by raising certain issues whether it is corruption or constitution; how far to push them, when to distract the audience away and how to startle their rivals with sharp criticism while, at the same time, offering the other cheek in a strategic retreat-a perfect combination of passion, patience and pretence.

Their job sometimes can be as challenging as that of a NASCAR driver that requires brisk reflexes and extraordinary attention. Even for a fraction of a second, if he loses either one, he loses the race; the opponents speeding too far ahead, a widening gulf getting impossible to cover. In terms of elections, the party just gets voted out.

It has happened to Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which except Sindh has lost connection with the people over the years. Disengaged to the point when people demand accountability, the party talks about reconciliation and when they ask for compromise PPP brings up ethnicity.

On the other hand, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) suffers from the same problem in Karachi where Nawaz Sharif could never convince the locals about his sincerity with their identity crisis or even his understanding of their problems. Instead, he projected himself as being an outsider who did not carry their interest in his heart. Although, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) made a late entry, but it still connected with the youth of the largest city and converted their affinity into votes.

Those who disrespect fellow citizens cannot be considered true patriots

The real point of discussion is the politics and the control of discourse in Punjab. In the cacophony of diverse opinions here, two major narratives cover the landscape. The first perspective is represented by a reactive and somewhat hostile, middle-class population settled in the urban areas. Their narrative is championed by PTI and Imran Khan. At its core, it stands against corruption and favours good governance.

Focusing more on the financial irregularities, they claim to introduce an honest and transparent government which will stop the pilferage strengthening the economy, expanding the job market, reducing the loan burden and in-turn freeing the country from international commitments. Critics believe this narrative is promoted and kept alive by the establishment to denounce and discredit the politicians depicting them as insensitive and insincere role models.

The contesting narrative holds that people cannot be stripped of their right to rule and thus to choose their own rulers. Of course, the process won’t bring the brightest and the most honest cohort, in the beginning, letting people with dubious character cling to power, but this is how democracy works.

Over time, once its roots are established the culture will change like it did across the world. External factors including judiciary and establishment, therefore, should not interfere with it allowing democracy alone to help Pakistan wriggle herself out of the crisis. If they interfere, they not only hurt the process but the country as well.

Nawaz Sharif seems to push this message into this election campaign. When he was barred from holding any public office or to lead the country by the Supreme Court, the gurus thought his narrative, which included criticism on the two powerful institutions, would not gain popularity. But it did- a reality that was proved in the two subsequent by-elections.

I do not intend to support any singular narrative over the other since both parties who claim tall, fail to follow their own proposed virtues. PTI has gathered a lot of ‘allegedly’ corrupt politicians in its flock and PMLN has never conducted impartial party elections. With this established, I must acknowledge that both the parties have kept a tight grip on their talking points galvanizing and energizing people for the upcoming polls.

My position is simple: both the narratives hold some truth in them if followed in letter and spirit which, as I said earlier, is not the case. But in an election, we have to pick one candidate out of the list. The question then becomes: by doing so, do you think the other narrative becomes less patriotic or illegitimate? In my opinion, the answer is no.

Another perspective is that by supporting PTI one does not encourage the role of the military in politics or condone the judicial outreach. Similarly, by supporting PMLN one does not become ignorant or corrupt, an illiterate village dweller who votes to follow the family instructions and thus putting his personal interests before the interests of Pakistan, an opportunist who thrives on crime and corruption.

The parties must consider that calling names and disrespecting the voters by misusing the virtues of patriotism and democracy must, therefore, be condemned. I have to alert you against those self-proclaimed patriots who say we deserve corrupt politicians because we are ourselves corrupt or pronounce the nation will never be ready for a great leader like so and so, or those who blame the people for being uncouth and unethical.

Within itself, this attitude is an extremist ideology-a wolf in the garb of a sheep-since it is intolerant and disrespectful to those who disagree with them. In politics, one person’s virtue can be other ones vice. We have to accept it as a reality; the final decision is always left up to the people. And those who disrespect people cannot be considered patriots; they can only be regarded as extremists.

The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com